I thought I'd write a thread about this to see if other people share this view.

Let's say you donate millions to a feed a starving village in Africa. Wouldn't the people then continue having children whom they can't afford to feed, so those new children would eventually just starve to death? Wouldn't it then be your fault for helping those children get born in the first place? If you had done nothing, if you had sent zero dollars, many of those children would not have been born in the first place. Therefore, your charity money is actually multiplying the problem. Your money is causing many more children to be born who then starve to death.

Now, one argument to this is that charity money goes to 'family planning' to educate people about having affordable numbers of children in thier families. But hasn't this failed? If it works, then why is there still a constant need? I think family planning is just wishful thinking.

Likewise, charities that help starving people overseas have been around for many decades, yet the problem continues to grow. Does charity even work? If the village can't grow food, then it can't grow food. Your money won't make it rain for the next hundred years.

I believe charities merely lead to increasing the population, thereby increaseing the amount of disease and poverty. By trying to help the starving people, you are only making a greater disaster in the next generation.

When a forest is too dry, there is a forest fire which clears the land for a new forest years later when the region has enough rainfall again. Mabey 'dry' villages are supposed to die out. If you help them, you would have to keep helping them forever. The moment you stop supporting them, they will start dying again. Isn't charity just promoting the ultimate solution of having a hand out forever?

I believe when you interfere in such ways, by trying to be a hero and rescue starving people, you are actually becoming a future child torturer and killer. The people you help use your help to have many children, who then starve to death which is a torturous way to die. To some, the parents are poor souls who deserve all the help the can get. But in my eyes, the parents are child killers who see nothing wrong with producing children knowing full well they will likely starve to death. Why do people want to help child torturers and child killers? I don't understand. Can people not see beyond the here and now? What good is helping today's generation of poor if it means causing more suffering in the next generation.

A similar problem is with AIDS. Let's say you send over a large amount of AIDS treatments to help keep AIDS patients alive. It may sound cold, but people can't spread AIDS if they're dead. By keeping the carriers alive, there is at least some chance they can pass the virus onto others. Therefore, your charity work of keeping AIDS patients alive has increased the number of new AIDS patients. Doesn't that make you a killer in a shrewd sense? Why would you want to increase the number of AIDS patients when your goal is to reduce the impact of the epidemic?

Why can't people understand this? Why do cleberties and such go on television and plead too the public to help these doomed viallages? Why do they also insist on movements like 'make poverty history'? Don't they know that the only way to accomplish this is by removing billions of people from the world? If people want to make a difference, they need to choose smarter battles and stop promoting fairy tales.

There is also a problem with child soldiers and other war time attrocities. We are expected to help out these people...a people who are so evil they use children as their soldiers and establish 'rape factories' and commit genocide. To me, it sounds like the people we are supposed to help are far beyond help. If you help them, you are helping a people who produce men who use child soldiers. Wouldn't it be better to not help them? If the people are dying this means there are fewer men to create more rape factories and child soldiers.

This one is hard to explain, but I will try. Let's say you donate billions and remove all these horrific attrocities form one region. You've done it; you've gotten rid of child soldiers being used. Ok, but you've just helped a group of people who have been producing child soldiers become successful. Those people, due to your help, have become prosperous. They can now grow and prosper...to produce even more men who will use child soldiers. What I'm saying is, the people may be genetically disadvantaged over centuries of warfare to the point where the entire region is, for lack of a better word, evil. Or, shall we say, the people are very prone to producing child exploiters in each generation. If my theory is correct, and it's just a theory, then I have to ask, why help them? It's kind of like a rape victum giving birth to a rapist's baby. The woman raises the baby, who has 50% of the same DNA as his rapist father. The womon should chuck the rapist's baby down the nearest well.

When someone kills a child, we think "How horrible. How can someone do that?" But it's OK to do it to future children? I don't get it. It's Ok to help a woman in Africa produce children who are certain to die by the age of 4. Anyway, for all these reasons and more, I am opposed to this sort of charity. You should instead help people who you know are going to be helped.

So I read about the first paragraph. And I think you missed the point where even when we give aid, these people are not living comfortably. There is still considerable motivation to work hard and make things better for themselves and their communities.

I think that in a round-about way you've hit on the problem of hand-outs in general, from African relief to Big 3 bailouts. They create a culture of dependency without doing anything to solve the underlying problems.

Africa is not an over-populated continent. Africans are poor because throughout history their governments have failed them in every possible way governments can fail. The wealthy nations of the world did not become so because other nations showered charity upon them. They got rich by freeing their people and their economies. That is the solution for Africa as well.

Suggestion: succinctly introduce your point with the OP. Let the subsequent posts develop the discussion.

Yeah, just feeding someone doesn't do much to improve their situation, imagine that!

I tried to read your whole post, but I couldn't stand the narrow mindedness. I got to the paragraph about the starving parents being child torturers and child killers, so I skipped the paragraph. Then I skipped the next one.

These people are not educated, and they don't have access to family planning resources. Plus some religious groups tell them that condoms cause aids. It's a wonder that aids is a problem over there. There is a distinct lack of stable government in those regions and the people suffer for it.

The reason that donating $1 mil doesn't help much is that money isn't the real problem. They need education and infrastructure. It does take money to get those things, and much of the money that developed nations give in aid is used for that purpose, but just donating money to feed people doesn't elevate them. It, as you say, just prolongs their current existence. Charity works fine when you aren't just giving liquid funds, but are also helping them decide how the spend it and are helping do the things that need to be done.

I saw a news story recently about how China gave aid to a developing country on the condition that they spend the money by hiring chinese contractors to build infrastructure. That's how you help a developing country.

I saw a news story recently about how China gave aid to a developing country on the condition that they spend the money by hiring chinese contractors to build infrastructure. That's how you help a developing country.

Click to expand...

Depending on how it is done this can be one of the most harmful ways of giving 'aid'.

If the money was in the form of a Loan then essentially the Chinese government is getting the country it is supposedly giving aid to to employ Chinese contractors on an uncompetitive tender and then pay China back the money with interest.

Further to that, as the work does not develop skills in the "Aided" country (their own Engineers and laborers don't get to take part in the work and so don't increase their knowledge or skills) the troubled country will then have to keep employing outside contractors to maintain and further develop the infrastructure.

This is great for China, who get another country to give them lots of money, employ Chinese citizens at premium wages, boost Chinese industry (you can bet all the materials will come from China wherever possible) and secures steady future work for the Chinese contractors.

Stillman, what's your EBIL KKKonservative Agent number? I didn't see you at the last meeting.

Charity without perspective often achieves a negative result. Look at the Palestinian refugees, or inner Philly for that matter - people will become accustomed to the charity and simply cease efforts to improve their lot. I far prefer efforts such as those of the Grameen Bank's Muhammad Yunus or Mohammed Bah Abba (both of which are more deserving than AlGore of the Nobel prize) to the bags of UN grain that support the North Korean military.

One of the least discussed instances of charity's failings was the Green Revolution, when America believed that it could revolutionize agriculture so that the world would be in a better position to feed itself. Interestingly enough, the cited Wiki alludes to lefties disliking it because of the Cold War context (it apparently helped dampen commies' aspirations in India & Mexico), while the same narcissistic "do-gooder" impulse is so often their stock-in-trade. The problems with the Green Revolution were that it doesn't matter if the technology works, when people can't afford it, can't maintain it, or the society won't adjust to it. My Grandfather remembers scores of brand-new combine harvesters in a warehouse in Afghanistan when he arrived, and that they were still sitting in the same warehouse when he left some years later.

Depending on how it is done this can be one of the most harmful ways of giving 'aid'.

If the money was in the form of a Loan then essentially the Chinese government is getting the country it is supposedly giving aid to to employ Chinese contractors on an uncompetitive tender and then pay China back the money with interest.

Further to that, as the work does not develop skills in the "Aided" country (their own Engineers and laborers don't get to take part in the work and so don't increase their knowledge or skills) the troubled country will then have to keep employing outside contractors to maintain and further develop the infrastructure.

This is great for China, who get another country to give them lots of money, employ Chinese citizens at premium wages, boost Chinese industry (you can bet all the materials will come from China wherever possible) and secures steady future work for the Chinese contractors.

For the country being "Helped"... not so much.

Click to expand...

Did you read the rest of my post? I think I'm aware that education and skill development are important too.

So infrastructure doesn't help the developing country? How else are they to get infrastructure if no one builds it for them? The nation in the news story did not have the capacity to build anything substantial, so someone has to do it for them. Instead of giving them something for free, China helped them get something done. Now with that infrastructure in place, they are better able to improve in other ways.

You can't expect 3rd world countries to suddenly have the educational capacities that we have without things like roads. In a short period of time, how are you going to train the thousands of people it takes to build roads if you don't have any?

Iirc, the money was given without the condition that it be payed back, so no, China isn't really profiting. Feel free to google for it; maybe I'm wrong about the form the money took.

Which seems fairly balanced giving the pros and cons but it does contain this paragraph:

Article said:

However, China has also experienced from bumps in the road. Sometimes the aid China promises does not materialize, and this can cause resentment from aid recipients. Furthermore, Chinese aid generally comes with no strings attached; no requirements for better governance or social programs mean that the availability of Chinese aid can undermine African governance. Also, China is providing commercial loans to African nations that have just received debt relief, sometimes forcing them back into a cycle of debt. Whatâ€™s more, Chinese firmsâ€™ poor labor and environmental standards sometimes may be contributing to environmental problems and labor unrest in Africa. Lastly, even though China is adamant against involvement in domestic politics, there are cases, like with the most recent elections in Zambia, that China has disrupted local politics.

Click to expand...

From the rest of the article it also seems that the motivation to provide 'Aid' comes, in no small part, from a desire to promote China's agenda (which is the same with many countries 'aid').

So infrastructure doesn't help the developing country? How else are they to get infrastructure if no one builds it for them?

Click to expand...

Who built infrastructure in the rest of the world?

Expensive infrastructure with strings attached is not as great as more competitive infrastructure without strings.

This is not to say that the infrastructure is not helpful, and certainly not to say that this type of 'Aid' is limited to China. I am just saying that this type of 'Aid' is normally a very expensive way for an impoverished country to develop and may not be in the best interests of the country compared to allowing them to choose whichever contractors they like.

The nation in the news story did not have the capacity to build anything substantial, so someone has to do it for them. Instead of giving them something for free, China helped them get something done. Now with that infrastructure in place, they are better able to improve in other ways.

Click to expand...

Like being able to carry out more efficient trade with China?

Bear in mind - if you're a poor African nation and China, one of your biggest trade partners, gives you 'aid' then that places you in a very awkward position when negotiating trade agreements that will be having effects long after the aid has been delivered.

You can't expect 3rd world countries to suddenly have the educational capacities that we have without things like roads. In a short period of time, how are you going to train the thousands of people it takes to build roads if you don't have any?

"Don't send them any more food. You wanna help these people, send them U-hauls. ... It occurred to us that there wouldn't be world hunger if you people would live where the food is." - Sam Kinison

stillman said:

We are expected to help out these people...a people who are so evil they use children as their soldiers and establish 'rape factories' and commit genocide.

Click to expand...

I think this is a scary flaw in your thinking. We are all the same people; the difference is circumstances. If you grew up in that society/culture/environment/worldview/whatever you want to call it, chances are you'd be just like them. If they grew up in America, had parents with decent jobs and money to afford schooling and toys and a nice house and cars, they would not do those things; they would do the same things we do. The only way to change things is to change the circumstances, either by allowing them to change on their own or giving them a little push.

Charity, used intelligently (say, microloans, or other methods that follow the basic ideas of economics), can greatly improve the well-being of people, their children, and potentially the entire human race. Charity, used wastefully, is still probably a better use of your extra dollar than buying an overpriced candy bar out of a vending machine that will likely not drop the candy bar anyway.

"So, I hope the Hindus have it right because, if there's any justice in this world, you will be reincarnated as a female, homosexual ***, and then you will understand what a big pain it is to be harassed by violent primitive dickheads like you." - Pat Condell

"Fretting about overpopulation, is a perfect guilt-free - indeed, sanctimonious - way for 'progressives' to be racists." - P.J. O'Rourke

As it turns out, you are only halfway right. The way a person turns out is determined by about 50% from their genes and about another 50% from environment. The actual numbers depend on what research you choose. If you take a course in genetics, then they say genetics make up 51% of the individual and environment shapes 49% and there is some 1% error factored in. If you take a course that focuses more in development, their selection of research says it's about 51% environment, and 49% genes with 1% error. Either way, it's obvious that it comes down to about half genes, half environment.

So the things you brought up: nice upbringing in America, good parenting, schooling, toys, nice homes, etc. is called environmental enrichment. Well, it's called that if it's a really nice upbringing done on purpose to outdo the norm, like in an 'ideal' American home with great wealthy parents. But even with less, all those factors you mentioned count as the environmental influence on the individual. This determines about half of the individual. The other half is determined by genetics. This is all found through research and literature and I can support it with some textbooks if anyone wants me to.

Now, keep in mind, I stated that groups of people can become 'evil' due to both genes and environment, and this was just my theory. It may indeed be flawed, the 'evil' part. My thinking is they are doomed due to their genes. All the wonderful upbringing in the world can only fix half of what they turn out to become. So according to my belief, you can pour money into their society as much as you want, but if the people have been committing war time attrocities for centuries non-stop, the behaviors that I called 'evil' are going to continue being passed down to their next generations. You've got entire generations of children whose fathers were rapists. Just something to think about; so I thought I'd put it in with the rest. All the environmental enrichment is only going to help remedy about 50% of the 'evil' behaviors.

About the infrastructure: Idk much about this, but I think the solution is for them to build their own, even if it's cruddy and low grade. They can make it better over time, as already noted. Cruddy schools don't need stellar roads; they only need cruddy roads until the schools slowly get better.

As someone else mentioned, the real root of the problem is likely bad government. I'm guessing any progress that gets made will just get demolished through the whims of petty warefare. This is where their government is supposed to step in and save their beginning infrastructure from being destroyed in war. But I don't think anyone can count on the government keeping a corruption-free military to do anything just.

So since the government is too posioned, and since the people may or may not be genetically doomed depending on whether I'm right or not, any money or help that gets sent over there won't amount to anything long standing.

In fact, I remeber a delima on the news a few years back about countries trying to decide to forgive the debt that Africa owes. It's in the many trillions (300 trillion? I don't recall) because they just keep taking aid from whoever will provide it. So anyway, if countries decide to forgive the debt so Africa no longer owes anything, then why the hell would any countries 'lend' any future help? The world attitude would be: 'They didn't pay back what they owed the last time; they won't be able to in the future.'

To summarize, they're about as screwed as they can get. Whatever we've been doing to help hasn't worked well enough or there wouldn't be a huge need after all these years and trillions of dollars of aid. Maybe it's time for a different approach instead of chucking money at them. Ty for not calling me a moron right off the bat and for looking into the problem instead of turning a blind eye to the realities.

Stilman is quite right.Unless the uncontrolled multiplication of people is stopped ,We will get nowhere.As long as they increase in numbers faster than you can grow food or build schools,things must get worse.we need a 2 child policy worldwide, and it has to be enforced.Noone has the right to overpopulate the world ,and even less right to expect the west to finance this madness.
It is impossible that a handful of countries can fix what everybody else has screwed up.The problem started when we gave them medicine and food, but not birth contol.Just as in europe a 150 years ago, people died of pestilence and hunger, so the pop. never exploded.
Sooner or later,when the west runs into problems of their own,the whole charity will dry up.And then all hell will break loose.It is as with earthquakes: the longer nothing happens,the worse it is when it finally does.
Just imagine the resouces we would need if everyone of 6 billion people were to be middle class! it is just not possible!
So mankind is in serious trouble ,and unless a few billion die, this planet is DOOMED!

At least this idea isn't new. On my trip to Scotland I visited Rosalins chapel. They have two carvings over an arch detailing the 7 virtues and 7 sins. Charity was with the sins and Greed with the virtues.

Seems to me a bit of common sense, outright charity untill you've taught people to take care of themselves pretty much solves the problem.

China was smart to impose the one child policy law. But they did this too late; if they had acted earlier, they could have made it a more reasonable number. A lot of people are probably very unhappy only being allowed one child in China even when a familiy could afford more, but 3-4 would make almost everyone happy imo.

I did some thinking on X child policy laws a while back and I think all that really matters is that there IS some limit. It almost doesn't matter what the number X is. It could even 8 or 10, and that very high limit would still do wonders. It doesn't necessarily have to be painfully low like 1-3. I suppose it would depend on each country and how much of a mess they are in. All that would matter is there is at least some control and action being taken instead of the current free-for-all where everyone plunders the Earth for every last resource.

Polygamists would never stand for this type of law, but these men are having sex with many different women. Since they're spoiled in this regard, the laws should not cater to them, imo. Limiting the goals of spoiled people doesn't sound so bad.

I would say the number X should be at least 5 or so for countries that are stable enough. If it's too low like 1-2, then you have to think of tragedies like car accidents where both children die and that would cut off the family line. The couple is too old to have more children, etc. It is much less likely for 5 children to die in one accident. Everyone deserves to procreate and continue their family line. I'm just saying it needs regulation. No one needs unlimited children.

An even better law would be one that protects children from being born into horrific conditions in the first place. So the way it would work is you have your 5 kids with no interference at all from the government. But after that, if you want more, you would have to show proof that you are already taking good care of the 5 kids you already have. If they are starving, then the government says no, 5 is enough for you. But of course, we are treading very contraversial waters here. People want their rights to have all the children they desire. But the way I see it, it's 2 parents values versus the many starving kids' health and safety. It's simple numbers.

China was smart to impose the one child policy law. But they did this too late; if they had acted earlier, they could have made it a more reasonable number. A lot of people are probably very unhappy only being allowed one child in China even when a familiy could afford more, but 3-4 would make almost everyone happy imo.

I did some thinking on X child policy laws a while back and I think all that really matters is that there IS some limit. It almost doesn't matter what the number X is. It could even 8 or 10, and that very high limit would still do wonders. It doesn't necessarily have to be painfully low like 1-3. I suppose it would depend on each country and how much of a mess they are in. All that would matter is there is at least some control and action being taken instead of the current free-for-all where everyone plunders the Earth for every last resource.

Polygamists would never stand for this type of law, but these men are having sex with many different women. Since they're spoiled in this regard, the laws should not cater to them, imo. Limiting the goals of spoiled people doesn't sound so bad.

I would say the number X should be at least 5 or so for countries that are stable enough. If it's too low like 1-2, then you have to think of tragedies like car accidents where both children die and that would cut off the family line. The couple is too old to have more children, etc. It is much less likely for 5 children to die in one accident. Everyone deserves to procreate and continue their family line. I'm just saying it needs regulation. No one needs unlimited children.

An even better law would be one that protects children from being born into horrific conditions in the first place. So the way it would work is you have your 5 kids with no interference at all from the government. But after that, if you want more, you would have to show proof that you are already taking good care of the 5 kids you already have. If they are starving, then the government says no, 5 is enough for you. But of course, we are treading very contraversial waters here. People want their rights to have all the children they desire. But the way I see it, it's 2 parents values versus the many starving kids' health and safety. It's simple numbers.

Click to expand...

It takes ~2.1 kids per woman to keep the population stable. Any more any the population will grow. Assuming we want the population to decline (and I imagine most people do), this means we either must have a max of 2.1 per woman as a general rule, or find a way to only allow high quality women to breed. As I doubt most of you want to delve that deeply into eugenics, would you feel happy with being allowed a max of 2 children?